Yearning for God, Trying to Love My Neighbor, Making Theatre and Beauty, Building a Life...

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The Importunate Women: Faithful Activism and Questioning in a Gospel Context

The past couple of years seemed to have been the
agony and the ecstasy for Mormon feminists. Never have there been such so many consecutive,
positive changes (incremental as they are) in the way the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints treats and engages with the female half of its membership.
The missionary age change. Prayers in General Conference by women. A push for
more inclusion in ward councils. There is evidence that the Church is listening
to the dialogue created by the events created by Mormon feminists seeking for
more equality in the Church. Yet it often seems as if the Church makes three
steps forward, only to take two steps back.

A case in point is the recent statement made by the
Church’s efforts against the feminist Mormon group Ordain Women, who wanted to
sit and listen peacefully to the priesthood session of the LDS General
Conference. Ordain Women collected a group of Mormon women and men together to
go to the LDS Temple Square in Salt Lake City and peacefully and calmly request
to be admitted, so that they could listen to the session in
person. Despite the fact that one does not really have to hold the priesthood, nor
does one even have to be a member of the Church to be admitted into this session…yet
it does appear that one does have to be a man. On those grounds, after a
personal request from the couple of hundred people who had gathered, the Church
representative guarding the door declined each request and then a garbage truck
was parked in front of the door to make sure that the Mormon women who were
making the request could not get in once the meeting had started.

That was in 2013. Now in the Spring 2014 Conference,
Ordain Women is going to attempt the same action. The Church PR Departmentrecently put out a statement which, on the one hand seemed to be pleading
Ordain Women to re-consider as fellow members of the faith, and on the other
hand, seemed to be doing its best to stigmatize and alienate those who were acting
on their consciences in this way. When the PR department used words such as “extreme”
and “small” to describe a group that has
made concentrated efforts to demonstrate that they want to remain faithful to
the Church and active in their faith, while maintaining their dignity and
integrity of belief, then I believe the Church’s PR department is making a
great mistake in demeaning peaceful and calm activism. When it suggests that
the group is “detracting from the dialogue,” when it actually appears that Ordain
Women are the ones who are instigating that dialogue (many of the Church’s
recent changes have occurred after Ordain Women’s related demonstrations), then
that makes it appear as spin doctoring, not revelation.

I can understand why the Church would want to tone
down the pressure that is being put on them by Mormon feminists. No one likes
to look bad, especially when you are seeking unity among a large group of
diverse people. But the Church’s PR department compounds the supposed problem
by seeming dismissive and insensitive to their own fellow Church members. Many
of these feminist women and men have temple recommends and hold callings and
are active in their faith. I know this because I know some of them and have
been impressed with their spirituality, their intelligence, their diplomacy,
and their kindness. Minority as they are, Ordain Women are a growing group and
when representatives of the Church treat them in an Un-Christian like manner
(like the indignity of parking a garbage
truck in front of them!), then that makes the Ordain Women group seem like
the hurt party, and makes them all the more appealing to those like me who have
sat on the fence about officially joining them (although I have not made asecret of my support for female ordination, and have admired the group’s
sincere efforts, including those of OW founder Kate Kelly).

I have read/heard many members of the Church attack the Mormon feminists in unkind and distorting ways,
especially targeting those feminists who make a public “spectacle” and use
activism as a way to make themselves heard among a people who would rather not
listen. And, in a way, I understand the impulse to resent disruptions like
these. After all, General Conference is generally seen as a time of great
spirituality, healing, and renewal for most Latter-day Saints. It seems
unseemly to use that time to stage a protest.

But let’s forget that emotional impulse for a moment
and step back and ask the “big picture” question that this situation demands.
Is it good for religious members to “protest,” question, and ask things of
their own Church? Must a good Mormon/Latter-day Saint (or Catholic, or
Protestant, or Muslim, or Orthodox Jew, or Quaker, etc.) defer to the judgment
of their leaders in all things, never asking, never questioning, never
searching deeper than the latest PR release or the sound bites related in
Church approved manuals? Is inquiry a dirty word among the religious faithful?
And, further still, is there ever an appropriate time when a peaceful and
orderly demonstration of those questions and concerns can be held, even during
very public and prominent places and times?

As a Mormon and a Christian, my mind first goes to
the Gospels and the example of the Savior. As our exemplar, was there ever a
time where he challenged the religious authority of his day? The question is
barely asked before numerous examples of his “demonstrations” comes to mind.
Jesus grappled in the public sphere against the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and the
Sadducees. Prominently, I think of Jesus “cleansing” the temple in Matthew
21:12-16:

And Jesus
went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the
temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them
that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called
the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and
the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. And when the chief
priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children
crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore
displeased, And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith
unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings
thou hast perfected praise?

The Gospel of John 2:15 adds the
details of a whip being used by Jesus
at this point:

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he
drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out
the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables…

Jesus
made a ruckus. At the temple. With a whip. In comparison, the Ordain Women group
peacefully singing hymns and standing quietly in line seems pretty mild. Yet,
like Jesus, these faithful Mormon feminists felt like a great mistake had been
made in the Church, and they were courageous enough to take the example of
Jesus and make their voice heard, albeit in a more peaceful and mild way than
overturning tables, driving out cattle, and employing a “scourge of small
cords.” Talk about spectacle.

But
I already hear the protestation to this: “But Jesus was the Son of God! He, of
course, has the right to do this!” Well, yes, he was, and, yes, he does. But let’s
remember that Jesus said, “Come follow me.”

Jesus
also give what I think is a very revealing parable when applied to our modern
context. The tale is often called “The Parable of the Unjust Judge,” or more
apt with Mormon feminists “The Parable of the Importunate Widow.” The parable
is found in Luke 18:1-7:

And
he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and
not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God,
neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto
him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but
afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet
because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual
coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And
shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he
bear long with them?

According to Merriam-Webster, the word “importunate”
means “troublesomely urgent: overly persistent in request or demand.” Another online dictionary
defines the adjective as, “urgent or persistent in solicitation, sometimes annoyingly so.
Pertinacious, as solicitations or demands. Troublesome; annoying.” I know of
many Mormons who would gleefully attach these descriptions to the Mormon
feminists’ efforts to be heard within the current patriarchal structure of the
Church.

But the
greater question then becomes why did Jesus use the example of just such a
woman to show the persistence one should use in prying answers out of a God who
“bears with them long” and that one should “trouble” God and his judges with
their pleas?

Yes, imperfect people as they are, many leaders and members of the
Church are showing their annoyance at such a persistent, trouble-making, importunate women! But the irony, of
course, is that those same importunate women (and men) are employing the advice of Jesus Christ in persisting
after their righteous desires, even when others criticize them for their
efforts to bring their concerns to the feet of the Lord’s prophets and judges. Jesus
seemed to indicate that we should ignore those who think we are annoying or
trouble makers. What is more important is that we are following our consciences,
wherever they may take us. Like the popular Mormon hymn says, “Do what is
right, let the consequence follow.”

I recently
read a Mormon feminist’s Facebook post that quoted from Martin Luther King’s
letter in Birmingham Jail, which she was applying to the Ordain Women movement,
and addressing its critics. I thought the quote was very appropriate to the
situation:

You
may well ask: 'Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't
negotiation a better path?' You are quite right in calling, for negotiation.
Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action
seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which
has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks
to so dramatize the issue
that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of
the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must
confess that I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed
violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which
is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create
a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths
and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective
appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind
of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice
and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The
purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed
that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with
you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been
bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

I am very fond of the current leadership of the
Church, especially the First Presidency. In matters of the increasing transparency
of Church History, the loving tolerance showed my men like President Uchtdorf
and President Monson, the broadening of the tent of Mormonism to include a more
diverse church membership—we are making progress in areas that are remarkable
and humbling. Although we are bleeding members because, even now, they haven’t
found a welcoming heart among those members of the Church who should know
better, yet I also believe we are seeing the emergence of a New Mormon
Faithful, a new type of Mormon who can maintain their faith in the Restored
Gospel, despite the understandable human frailty of its members and leaders.

The New Mormon Faithful is represented by a new type
of Latter-day Saint who is informed and educated about the complexities and
even the dark spots of their faith, but who also have a spiritual anchor that
has given them access to the personal revelation that is required to maintain
faith in times of trouble. I have seen
many of these kinds of Mormons, and they inspire me. I have found many of their
number among the Mormon feminists I have met and cared about, and have seen
many of them represent the Ordain Women movement. Whether I will ever
officially count myself among their number remains yet to be seen.

For the moment, I certainly admire these good women
and men and believe it is their right to inquire, ask and, yes, even agitate
faithfully about the issues which they feel prompted to engage in. To try and
censor them, or diminish them, or alienate, or “other” them, would show what is
wrong with us, not what is wrong with them. For all we know, they are about their
Heavenly Father and Mother’s business. For
“shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though
he bear long with them?”

5 comments:

I would not be found confronting church authority at the General Priesthood session, and I will not wear pants to church to make a statement, it is not where my Savior would have me personally. I have been directed in other ways to support the need for women to understand their role in the priesthood and to include more female representation because there is a problem here whether we choose to see it or not.

Just this past Sunday I heard a sister say "I don't know why they are doing it this way, I just don't question the Bishopric". If you allow church leaders to become your personal authority rather than the facilitators of the church they are designed to be, then you have made them into idols and infallible objects. This is not fair to them nor to you and it interrupts ones ability to develop a private personal relationship with Christ Himself.

If one has not studied why these women are doing what they are doing then one may error in assuming these women are prideful. If one does not believe doctrines and policies come about by prophets seeking to know the needs of the people then perhaps they are not versed in doctrine or the procedures of the Church, many changes have come about precisely because members question authority.

For those paying attention to the drama unfolding this is an opportunity to open your mind through study and prayer, not to close it with judgment and lack of understanding or education.

If you find yourself bitter and agitated at the scene these women are creating, perhaps it is because your soul is hungering for further light and knowledge.

I should also note that I keep referring to "Mormon feminists" in the third person, which gives the impression that I am not one. That is certainly not the case. I happily use that self identifier. I am a Mormon feminist.